Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised
•
2 likes•3,820 views
Presentation of Principal Component Analysis of Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised
Similar to Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised (20)
More from Scott R. Furtwengler, Ph.D.
More from Scott R. Furtwengler, Ph.D. (8)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised
- 1. Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised Scott R. Furtwengler, University of Houston EPSY 8300 Advanced Measurement Thursday, April 25, 2013
- 2. Outline Overview of the problem Purpose of the current study Brief overview of extant literature Methodology Results Discussion/Implications References Questions
- 3. Overview of the problem Mean differences between honors versus traditional high-ability students on several measures remain largely unexplained.
- 4. Purpose of the current study The purpose of the study is to test the construct validity of the AGQ-R. Research question: Do latent factors such as the adoption of a specific Achievement Goal Orientation predict who among high ability students will participate in a community college honors program and those who do not?
- 5. Achievement Goal Orientation Dweck (1986), Maehr (1983), Nicholls (1984) Mastery goals: developing competence through task mastery Performance goals: developing competence relative to others
- 6. Achievement Goal Orientation Elliot (1999), Elliot & Harackiewicz (1996) Extended to a 2 x 2 model Definitions of competence: mastery & performance Valences of competence: approach & avoidance
- 7. Achievement Goal Orientation Law, Elliot, & Murayama (2012) Performance-approach goals: high effort, high persistence, high level of aspiration, high academic performance Performance-avoidance goals: disorganized study strategies, high test anxiety, low academic performance, low intrinsic motivation Perceived competence is a moderator for the performance dimension
- 8. Achievement Goal Orientation The 2 x 2 Framework of Achievement Goal Orientations Approach Valence Avoidance Valence Mastery-Goal Definition Focus on learning Focus on avoiding misunderstanding Performance-Goal Definition Focus on out-performing others Focus on avoiding the appearance of incompetence, avoiding negative judgments
- 9. Methodology Participants Instrument Procedure
- 10. Methodology: participants N = 398, 3.25 GPA on at least 12 hours Groups: 120 honors, 278 non-honors Cum. GPA: 3.25 - 4.00 (M = 3.55, SD = 0.29) Age: 15 - 70 (M = 29.27, SD = 11.00) Gender: 293 Female, 105 Male Ethnicity: 159 White or Caucasian, 116 Hispanic or Latino Origin, 23 Black or African American, 37 Asian, 7 Native American or Alaskan, 19 International, and 37 Unknown or Not Reported Status: 383 Continuing, 15 FTIC
- 11. Methodology: instrument Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008) 12-item survey, each item consisting of a five-point summative response scale Cronbach’s alphas: • Mastery-approach, .84 • Mastery-avoidance, .88 • Performance-approach, .92 • Performance-avoidance, .94 Revised several questions to diminish ambiguity.
- 12. Methodology: procedure 1606 e-mail invitations San Jacinto College 12 hours of college-level courses 3.25 cumulative GPA 400 students responded by completing the instrument for a 25.91% response rate. 1 respondent was excluded because he/she could not be identified. 1 eighteen-year- old, Hispanic female originally identified as “honors” and “continuing” was excluded based on 0.66 GPA.
- 13. Results Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-approach, .88 (.84) Mastery-avoidance, .71 (.88) Performance-approach, .91 (.92) Performance-avoidance, .90 (.94)
- 14. Descriptive Statistics Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Achievement Goal Orientation Scales 95% CI Item N M (SD) LL UL Mastery-approach_1 368 4.50 (.795) 4.42 4.58 Mastery-approach_2 368 4.67 (.684) 4.59 4.73 Mastery-approach_3 368 4.59 (.733) 4.51 4.65 Mastery-avoidance_1 368 4.63 (.792) 4.54 4.70 Mastery-avoidance_2 368 3.82 (1.401) 3.67 3.96 Mastery-avoidance_3 368 4.22 (1.067) 4.11 4.33 Performance-approach_1 368 4.25 (1.054) 4.14 4.36 Performance-approach_2 368 4.27 (1.073) 4.16 4.38 Performance-approach_3 368 4.00 (1.164) 3.88 4.11 Performance-avoidance_1 368 4.23 (1.145) 4.12 4.35 Performance-avoidance_2 368 3.95 (1.230) 3.83 4.08 Performance-avoidance_3 368 3.98 (1.231) 3.85 4.10 Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit.
- 15. Principal Component Analysis Table 2 Factor Loadings for Principal Components with Varimax Rotation of Achievement Goal Orientation Scales Scale Performance Mastery Approach Avoidance Mastery-approach_1 .183 .819 .141 Mastery-approach_2 .156 .878 .127 Mastery-approach_3 .155 .881 .176 Mastery-avoidance_1 .228 .692 .302 Mastery-avoidance_2 .133 .224 .795 Mastery-avoidance_3 .119 .338 .817 Performance-approach_1 .826 .319 -.017 Performance-approach_2 .902 .258 -.020 Performance-approach_3 .869 .138 .170 Performance-avoidance_1 .863 .211 .183 Performance-avoidance_2 .716 .048 .573 Performance-avoidance_3 .770 .038 .480 Note: Factor loadings > .400 are in boldface.
- 16. Results ANOVA: No statistically significant difference in goal orientation between groups, although honors students maintained higher mean scores in Mastery-Avoidance. Logistic Regression: The present study offers no evidence of predictive accuracy for goal orientation for high-ability students choosing to participate in a community college honors program.
- 17. Results Logistic Regression Results for Predicting Whether High Ability Students Participate in a Community College Honors Program Using Goal Orientation Scores as Independent Variables 95.0% CI for Exp (B) Step Variable B Wald Significance Exp (B) Lower Upper 1 Mast_App -.145 .410 .522 .865 .555 1.348 Mast_Av .289 2.359 .125 1.335 .923 1.929 Perf_App -.109 .281 .596 .897 .600 1.340 Perf_Av -.012 .003 .953 .988 .670 1.459 Constant -.902 1.300 .254 .406
- 18. Discussion Achievement Goal Orientation: The purpose was to test the structural validity of the AGQ-R, which is based on a 2x2 model of goal orientation. The present findings indicate that this model may not be the best fit.
- 19. Discussion Achievement Goal Orientation: In this sample, AGO was not an accurate predictor of high-ability students’ decisions to participate in an honors program. Similar research in more established contexts may yield different results. Limitations: sample size, community college population (generalizability), lack of awareness.
- 20. Implications Achievement Goal Orientation: Further research on co-activation of performance- approach and avoidance dimension and discrimination between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance valences. Additional dimensions. Exploration of a subscale for performance- avoidance: adaptive & maladaptive.
- 21. Implications Explore other factors that might account for differences in participation and academic outcomes between the two groups: academic self-concept, achievement goal orientation, attributional style, expectancy- values theory, parents’ level of education, SES.
- 22. References Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461– 475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461 Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoid goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 806-819. Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels, why Sarah never did. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 179–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.
- 23. Questions?
- 24. Contact information Scott R. Furtwengler Honors Program, San Jacinto College 13735 Beamer Road Houston, TX 77089 281-929-4614 scott.furtwengler@sjcd.edu srfurtwengler@uh.edu
Editor's Notes
- Research interests, background, preliminary researchMean differences: are non-honors students exhibiting self-handicapping behavior by not participating in an honors environment? For some community colleges, this is a question of accountability. If the students participating in honors are experiencing a higher degree of success on metrics of retention, achievement outcomes, persistence, and time-to-graduation, why aren’t all high ability students choosing to participate. If there are no measureable differences, why should we allocate resources to such a small population of students?
- Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008), a 12-item survey, each item consisting of a five-point summative response scale. The structural validity of Elliott’s and Murayama’s revised instrument stands up to rigorous scrutiny. They found the four-factor structure to be a better fit to the data than other three- and two-factor structures, with each of the four factors exhibiting a high-degree of internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-approach, .84; Mastery-avoidance, .88; Performance-approach, .92; and Performance-avoidance, .94).
- 1606 e-mail invitations to participate in the study were sent to San Jacinto College students who had successfully completed at least 12 hours of college-level courses and had a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.25.
- Changes were made to the following items to diminish ambiguity. For item 1, the word “completely” was deleted, based on the assumption that one either masters a task or does not; there are no gradations of mastery. Item 4 was revised to “relative” rather than “in comparison” simply for readability’s sake. Item 5 was revised to “My aim is to avoid falling behind in learning the material.” Item 9 was revised to “My goal is to avoid not mastering the subject matter.”These revisions resulted in similar degrees of internal consistency and reliability on all but the mastery-avoidance subscale (Cronbach’s alphas: mastery-approach, .88; mastery-avoidance, .71; performance-approach, .91; Performance-avoidance, .90).In addition, students were asked to choose one of their courses and respond to the items based on that particular course.
- Descriptives for each item.
- Based on Kaiser’s rule and Cattell’s scree plot, I extracted three components and conducted Varimax Rotation, resulting in the following loadings.
- Because the criterion variable is dichotomous (to participate in a community college honors program or not) a simultaneous logistic regression was used to model the student’s decision to participate in the program. The predictor variables in this study are the four factors in the two by two model of achievement goal orientation (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance) with higher scores indicating greater adoption of the particular construct. Results of the logistic analysis indicate that the four-predictor model does not provide a statistically significant improvement over the constant only model, 2 (4, N=398) = 3.66, p = .000. The Nagelkerke pseudo R2 indicated that the model accounted for .01% of the total variance. This suggests that the set of predictors do not discriminate between high ability students who choose to participate in a community college honors program and those that choose to forego participation. Prediction success for the cases used in the development of the model was extremely low, with no change in overall predictive accuracy between the constant-only model at 69.8% and the model including the predictors at 69.8%. Table 2 presents the regression coefficients (B), the Wald statistics, significance level, odds ratios [Exp(B)], and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for adds ratios (OR) for each predictor. The Wald test reports that none of the four predictors (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance) are statistically significant predictors of participation in a community college honors program.